I am writing to tell you about the commercial floating bill from my perspective, in my own words. The bill passed the House on second reading today (Friday), and is expected to pass on thirds this coming Monday. In last week’s paper, it was reported that the bill could be expanded to include private boaters. There was no such expansion in the House. The bill is still strictly limited to commercial outfitters running historically run reaches of river.

The bill allows commercial outfitters to pass through private property under very limited circumstances. If the bill becomes law, they would be allowed incidental contact with the bed and banks, and that is defined in the bill. They are also allowed to portage in the event of a hazardous blockage of the river. The portage issue has been the most controversial, but as the bill sponsor I decided to address the issue head on, otherwise we will be right back where we are now a year later. Portaging is limited to the beds and banks. Otherwise it is trespassing.

So how did we get to this point? Last summer, Ches Russell and Mark Schumacher asked me to run legislation to address the fact that a landowner on the Taylor River had exercised his right to deny passage through his property. Let me be clear – he has the right under current law to file a civil trespass complaint if a boater floats through his property.

A boater can float through private property and avoid a criminal trespass charge only if they don’t touch anything. I just finished reading a very thoughtful letter to the paper by Mr. Donald Sabrowski and I want to thank him for writing it. If you read Mr. Sabrowski’s letter you might recall mention of a low bridge. The outfitters asked me to amend the law to address this situation because current law does not provide any guidance on what to do if a river is blocked. The outfitters can’t get under that bridge in high water.  And landowners have the right to build a bridge, put up fence, etc.

This policy question is rightly before the legislature. The last time the Supreme Court dealt with this access issue was in 1977, and twice in their ruling they noted that the legislature is the place to discuss the policy issues associated with increasing recreational demand on rivers in our state. After several months of discussion, we came up with a bill that was very limited in scope.

All of our surrounding states have addressed this issue at some level. Colorado stands out for being the only state in this region where the law is unsettled. And the bill I have proposed is by far the most limited. I thought that by taking that approach I could respond directly to the concerns that were raised – how to allow commercial rafting to continue without overreaching.

I have heard from a number of landowners that are strongly opposed to this bill. They have told me that they are very concerned about this bill opening the door to future erosion of private property rights. They feel I have chosen one group of consituents over another. They have told me stories of the floating community being disrespectful to landowners. I have heard all of this, and am truly listening. But what I have not heard are any other ideas for dealing with this impasse.

The question for all of us is what do we want the policy in Colorado to be? Is it truly all or nothing, or is there some middle ground? This is a reasonable bill that does not go too far and is intended to find that middle ground. But, and this is very important, the floating community has a responsibility to be respectful of private property. Mr. Sabrowski’s letter is proof that there is room for improvement on that front. This is a two-way street and the opposition to the bill reflects that.

I am sorry for the divisions in the community that have emerged – but when my constituents come to me with a request for help I am not the kind of person that tells them to go find someone else, or tells them that I am not willing to try. Thank you for listening.